Standards and Special Education Needs : The Importance of Standards of Pupil Achievement [1 ed.] 9781847142498, 9780826454317

Citation preview

Standards and Special Educational Needs

Also available from Continuum: Peter Benton and Tim O'Brien: Special Needs and the Beginning Teacher Paul Croll and Diana Moses: Special Needs in the Primary School Hannah Mortimer: Special Needs and Early Years Provision Tim O'Brien and Denis Guiney: Differentiation in Teaching and Learning

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS The Importance of Standards of Pupil Achievement Michael Farrell

CONTINUUM London and New York

Continuum The Tower Building 370 Lexington Avenue 11 York Road New York London SE1 7NX NY 10017-6503 © 2001 Michael Farrell All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. First published 2001 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 0-8264-5432-1 (hardback) 0-8264-5431-3 (paperback) Typeset by Paston PrePress Ltd, Beccles, Suffolk Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd, www.biddles.co.uk

Contents

About the author

xi

Acknowledgements

xiii

Introduction

xv

CHAPTER 1 Defining special educational needs and related terms

i

Introduction Disability in the United States of America

l

Special Educational Needs in Scotland and Northern Ireland

3

Definition of SEN in England and Wales

3

Learning difficulties

5

Disability

5

The World Health Organization constructs of health-related experiences

6

Establishing 'needs'

7

Should context or criteria determine SEN?

7

Manageability

9

Standards (broadly defined) and progress

10

'Prior attainment' in relation to standards

11

VI

CONTENTS

Potential confusion between SEN and other factors Pupils who have English as an additional language Pupils with low attainment because of poor opportunities Very able pupils

12 12 12 13

Summary

13

References

14

CHAPTER 2

Identifying, assessing and providing

for SEN

15

Introduction

15

The SEN Code of Practice

15

Principles and policies

15

Partnership

16

Identification, assessment and provision

16

Statutory assessments, statements and annual reviews

19

Thresholds

21

Summary

23

References

24

CHAPTER 3

Curriculum and assessment and target-setting

25

Introduction

25

Curriculum and assessment in England and Wales

25

Curriculum and assessment in the USA

27

Issues for SEN

28

Target-setting

30

Potentially negative effects of target-setting on schools working with pupils with SEN

31

Statutory targets as a possible inhibitor of mainstream inclusion

32

Target-setting for pupils with SEN

33

Benchmarking

34

CONTENTS

VII

Value added measures: baseline assessment as an indicator of value added

34

Summary

35

References

36

CHAPTER 4

Inclusion

39

Introduction

39

Defining inclusion

39

Social inclusion

40

Inclusion in the USA

41

Full inclusion

41

Some reservations about unqualified inclusion

42

'Educational inclusion' and standards

44

Summary

46

References

47

CHAPTER 5 Special education funding according to levels of achievement

49

Introduction

49

The rise and rise of special education funding

49

National allocation of funds in England and Wales

50

Local allocation of funds in England and Wales

51

Statements of SEN

52

Difficulties with school-based contextual judgements of SEN and the benefits of 'objective' criteria

53

A continuum of provision for a continuum of need

55

Funding for SEN in the USA

56

SEN funding - a case study

57

Summary

60

References

60

VIM

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6

The use of SEN standards and progress data with pupil information

63

Introduction

63

Pupil data on standards and progress

64

Examining standards and progress data in relation to other pupil factors

65

Examining standards and progress data in relation to gender Issues arising from the data in relation to gender Possible school responses

65 66 66

Ethnicity: data, issues and responses

67

Main learning difficulty: data, issues and responses

67

Social background: data, issues and responses

68

Age: data, issues and responses

69

information other than reading scores

70

Summary

71

References

71

CHAPTER 7 The use of SEN standards and progress data for 'stable' school provision 73 Introduction

73

Quality of teaching A model to assess the quality of teaching Teaching pupils with SEN Linking quality of teaching and curriculum access Systems supporting and enhancing the quality of teaching Comparing teaching provision

74 74 75 76 77 77

School organization Staff and pupils Staff roles and responsibilities Some difficulties of staff allocation The role of the SENCO

78 78 78 79 79

CONTENTS

Pupil organization Whole-school organization Classroom organization The use of standards and progress data in relation to school organization

IX

80 80 81 81

Summary

82

References

83

CHAPTER 8 SEN standards and progress data for 'variable' school provision and the role of documentation

85

Introduction

85

Professional support

85

Parents

87

The community

88

Documentation

89

Transition from primary school to secondary school Individual Education Plans The SEN policy

89 90 91

Summary

92

References

93

CHAPTER 9 The special school

95

Introduction

95

Definitions

96

Identification and assessment

96

Curriculum, assessment and target-setting

96

Inclusion and the 'new' role of the special school

99

Funding

100

The use of SEN standards and progress with data pupil information 100 The use of SEN standards and progress data for 'stable' school provision

101

X

CONTENTS

The use of SEN standards and progress data for 'variable' school provision

102

Summary

102

References

104

CHAPTER 10 Conclusion

105

Index

109

About the author

Michael Farrell trained as a teacher and as a psychologist and has served as a headteacher, a lecturer at the Institute of Education, London, and a local authority education inspector for special education. He has managed national projects for both City University and the Department for Education. Michael Farrell presently works as a special education consultant in Britain and abroad. This has included policy development and training with local education authorities, work with voluntary organizations, support to schools in the independent sector and advice to the State Bureau of Foreign Experts, China and the Ministry of Education, Seychelles. He has lectured widely in the United Kingdom and abroad. Author of over two hundred articles on education and psychology, Michael Farrell has edited thirty educational books. Among his other publications are The Handbook of Education (Blackwell, 1996) with Kerry and Kerry, Key Issues for Primary Schools (Routledge, 1999), Key Issues for Secondary Schools (Routledge, 2001) and The Special Education Handbook (David Fulton, 1997, 1998, 2000).

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements

The following colleagues commented on earlier drafts of the book or parts of it: Mr Gerry Ackroyd, Senior Educational Psychologist, Education, Youth and Leisure Services, London Borough of Hillingdon, England; Dr Rob Ashdown, Headteacher, St Luke's School, North Lincolnshire, England; Professor Philip Garner, Nottingham Trent University, England; Mrs Pat Locke, Headteacher, Christchurch Church of England Infant School, Surrey, England; Mr David Tully, Finance Manager, Education, Youth and Leisure Services, London Borough of Hillingdon, England. I am most grateful to these colleagues. Their assistance does not imply that their views are the same as those expressed in the text. The views expressed in Standards and Special Educational Needs are my own. Any shortcomings of the book are of course entirely my own.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

Readers of this book In The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, Henry Fielding embraces as well as anyone before or since the point of introducing the reader to what he might expect in a book. He sets out an introduction to the work or a 'bill of fare to the feast' so that all persons may peruse 'at their first entrance into a house'. Customers may then stay and 'regale with what is provided for them' or may seek out something better suited to their taste. To set out the bill of fare, this book is intended for a wide range of readers and, in particular: headteachers, senior teachers and governors; school inspectors and advisers, local government officers and support staff; government employees involved in education; and educationalists in universities and colleges of higher education. It is hoped that readers from England and Wales and from other developed English-speaking countries will find the book of interest. I hope parents and others with an interest in special educational needs will also be among readers of the book. Format of the book The book comprises ten chapters, including a brief conclusion chapter, and an index. Each chapter has an introduction, headlined sections and a summary and conclusion. References are given at the end of each chapter. Uses of the book This book seeks to illustrate the importance of and encourage further developments in the use of standards of pupil achievement in the area of special educational needs (SEN). This involves considering legislation, policies, procedure and practice. The book works through various aspects of SEN to show the importance of standards of pupil achievement, the

XVI

INTRODUCTION

opportunities to develop further the application of pupil attainment and the challenges that sometimes arise in trying to do so. These aspects of SEN embrace: definitions of SEN (and related terms), particularly in legislation; the assessment and identification of SEN; target setting, benchmarking and value added approaches; the issue of inclusion; and SEN funding at national and local levels. They also include the use of SEN progress and standards data in relation to pupil information (gender, ethnicity, main learning difficulty, social background and age). Other aspects of SEN covered are the use of SEN standards and progress data in relation to 'stable' school provision (quality of teaching, school organization and pupil organization) and in relation to 'variable' school provision (professional support, parents and the community). The book considers documentation including Individual Education Plans, school record keeping and school SEN policies. Finally, the role of the special school is considered. In order to follow through the implications of this approach in a coherent way, the system considered is that in England and Wales at the time of writing. This enables a related range of topics to be considered together, including legislation, government guidance, policies, a range of approaches used in schools and possibilities for further developing the use of standards of pupil acheivement in this context. It is hoped, however, that readers in other English-speaking developed countries will wish to consider the implications of the ideas and approaches covered in the book and the application to their own country. These countries include Scotland, Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Readers from countries other than England and Wales could follow through the approach of this book, should they wish, using their own legislative structure and their own policies and practices as necessary. Some issues, such as inclusion and the quality of teaching, are common to many countries. Further, some examples of approaches from other countries are included in the text although the main focus is England and Wales. One of the best models in literature of drawing tactful attention to imperfections is that of Herbert Pocket in Dickens's Great Expectations. Arriving newly in London, Pip asks Herbert for any hints if he does things wrong. As they eat their first meal together 'with London all around', Herbert sprinkles delicately into the conversation little tips (it is not the custom to put the knife in the mouth - for fear of accidents) with such good humour that Pip finds them very easy to accept. This book cannot hope to emulate such grace but one theme is as constructively as possible to suggest shortcomings in systems of SEN which do

INTRODUCTION

XVII

not take sufficient cognizance of standards of pupil achievement and to indicate the advantages of making standards more of a focus. Suggestions I would welcome any helpful comments to improve the book so that future editions may continue to be as informative as possible. Please write to me care of the publishers.

This book is dedicated to my dearest friend Malcolm Linstead.

CHAPTER 1

Defining special educational needs and related terms

Introduction Misunderstanding can be deliriously mischievous. United States actress Tallulah Bankhead affected not to recognize the Salvation Army soldier who approached with a tambourine for the collection. Dropping 50 dollars into the instrument, she cried, 'Don't bother to thank me. I know what a perfectly ghastly season it's been for you Spanish dancers.' However, clarity is beneficial too. This chapter therefore considers the definition of 'special educational needs' and related terms. Disability in the United States of America Our focus in this chapter is the definition of special educational needs in England and Wales but it is interesting first to consider briefly the definition in the USA, which differs in some important ways. A pupil requiring special education in the USA is referred to as 'disabled', whereas in England and Wales disability is one aspect of special educational needs (SEN), although a child may be disabled and not have SEN. In the USA, all pupils with a disability are entitled under law to an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This document offers legal protection similar to that provided by the statement of SEN in England and Wales. A document also called an IEP is used in England and Wales to supplement the requirements of a statement of SEN and for pupils with less severe and less complex SEN not requiring a statement. Also in England and Wales, many pupils receive SEN services without been required to have a statement. In the USA, pupils in need of special education covered by federal law both: have a defined disability; and

2

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

need special education because the disability has an adverse educational impact. Categories of disability under federal law as amended in 1997 (20 United States Code 1402, 1997) are as follows: mental retardation; traumatic brain injury; hearing impairment/deafness; visual impairment/blindness; speech or language impairments; serious emotional disturbance; orthopaedic impairments; autism; specific learning disabilities; health impairments. Federal law reflected in state law requires that disabled children be provided with free appropriate public education individualized to the child's needs and provided in the least restrictive environment. This involves having procedures for assessing that, to the maximum extent appropriate, students with 'disabilities' in United States terminology are educated with students who are not disabled. Special classes, separate schools or other removal of students with disabilities from the 'regular' educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. This requirement is now part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and covers over 10 per cent of the school population, for whom federal funds meet about 7 per cent of the total cost of their education (McDonnell et al. 1997). It is interesting to note the difference in the percentages considered to indicate the level of special educational need in England and Wales (about 16 per cent) and in the United States of America (about 10 per cent). Part of the reason for the differences may be that the percentage in England and Wales includes pupils with more severe SEN and those with less severe SEN, while in the USA the percentage appears to include those with more severe 'learning disabilities'. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that one is not discussing a group which is universally easily defined, like people with blue eyes or boys and girls. The identification of the group considered to have SENs or learning disabilities involves elements of educational and political judgement. Further legal protection is afforded by the Rehabilitation Act 1973, section 504, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which seek to

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

3

assure equal opportunities for disabled people to benefit from education programmes and activities. These laws give extra legal protection to disabled pupils within the remit of the IDEA but also cover those who are not eligible for IDEA programmes. These include pupils with mild disabilities who may need limited 'accommodations' such as extra time to finish tasks (Florian and Pullin, 2000). Pupils with disabilities must be fully included in initiatives and educational reforms (Public Law 105-17, 1997). Special Educational Needs in Scotland and Northern Ireland The United Kingdom comprises four countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although the latter two have their own legal and educational systems these are often similar to those of England and Wales. The systems in England and Wales are mainly shared and operate under the same laws. While the focus of this book in England and Wales, much of the text applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland (and other countries). At the same time, some aspects of special education in Scotland and Northern Ireland are distinctive. In Scotland, the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 (as amended) enacted several of the recommendations of the influential Warnock Report (DES, 1978). This included bringing in recording procedures. Parents were given a right to express a preference for a school but the education authority could refuse the request on several grounds; for example, if the child's admission would effect the education of other children. A Green Paper (a government consultative paper) on special education in Scotland (SOEID, 1998) included a range of commitments. For example, every education authority is required to prepare, publish and make available a full policy on special educational needs. Where possible pupils with SEN are included in mainstream schools, both grant-aided by central government and independent, and special classes within ordinary schools. (For an interesting comparison of approaches to SEN in Scotland and the United States of America see Lange and Riddell, 2000.) In Northern Ireland, under the Education and Libraries (NI) Order, education and library boards must provide for children and young people with SEN up to the age of nineteen. From the 1998-9 school year, Northern Ireland had a similar government code of practice on special education to that already in place in England and Wales. Definition of SEN in England and Wales The term special educational needs came to be commonly employed in England following its use in the Warnock Report (DES, 1978). Before then

4

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

it was more usual to refer to categories of 'handicap', which had been set out under regulations following the Education Act 1944, namely blind, partially sighted, deaf, partially deaf, delicate, diabetic, educationally subnormal, epileptic, maladjusted, physically handicapped and speech defect. In this case, the change indicates rather more than expunging an earlier term soiled by negative attitudes. Indeed, the medical profession still commonly uses the expression 'handicap'. But in education, the change to 'special educational needs' indicated that the previous 'handicapping conditions' were to be seen in relation to learning and were no longer categories carrying with them the possible connotations that development was arrested and the person's learning was fixed. Following the Warnock Report, the Education Act 1981 replaced the previous categories of handicap with a broader definition of special educational needs. These earlier categories included 'maladjusted' for what is now referred to as behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, and 'educationally subnormal-severe' for what we would presently called 'severe learning difficulties'. In the United States terminology differs from that currently used in England and Wales, and perhaps the area most likely to be confused is that of learning difficulties. The following are rough equivalents: England and Wales moderate learning difficulties severe learning difficulties profound and multiple learning difficulties

United States of America mild mental retardation moderate to severe mental retardation profound mental retardation

The well known broader definition of SEN in England and Wales, carried forward into later Education Acts including the Education Act 1996, emphasizes the link with learning, stating that: 'a child has special educational needs ... if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him' (Education Act 1996, section 312). It follows from this definition that the 'learning difficulty' has to be specified. The Act does this, stating that a child has a learning difficulty if: a) he has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age; b) he has a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children of his age in schools within the area of the local education authority; or c) he is under the age of five and is, or would be if special educational

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

5

provision were not made for him, likely to fall within paragraph (a) and (b) when of, or over that age. (Section 312 (2)) Learning difficulties Sub-section (a) of section 312(2) of the Education Act 1996 relates to learning difficulty 'significantly greater' than that of children of the same age. This is indicated in slow progress and, as a result, in low standards of achievement. An example of a learning difficulty is profound and multiple learning difficulty where the pupils' progress has been very slow and where standards of achievement are considerably below those of children who do not have such difficulties. Disability Sub-section 312(2)(b) of the Education Act 1996 concerns 'disability', so it is important to be clear about this term too. The Children Act 1989 states that a child is disabled if he or she is blind, deaf or dumb, surfers from mental disorder of any kind or is substantially or permanently handicapped by illness, injury, congenital deformity or other such disability as may be prescribed. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 defines a disabled person as someone who has: 'a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.' Not all disabled children will have a special educational need or a learning difficulty, although many will. (DfEE, 2000). A child who is disabled may not necessarily make slower progress and have lower standards of achievement than others of the same age. In other words, the nature of the disability is not defined by standards of achievement and progress. The difficulty is in gaining access to learning and the curriculum. If provision securely gives access, then the pupil's progress and standards can be the same as or better than other children. The point is that if the pupil does not receive help in gaining this access then her education is likely to surfer. In discussing learning difficulties and disability, it is not implied that they are always separate. A pupil with learning difficulty such as severe learning difficulties may also experience a disability such as blindness. Nor is it always easy, as we shall see in Chapter 2, to be definitive about whether some areas of SEN are most usefully considered as a learning difficulty or a disability or as both. For a broad overview of educational legislation in England and Wales, see Farrell et al. (1995). For an overview of special education legislation see Farrell (2000).

6

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

The World Health Organization constructs of health-related experiences The World Health Organization (WHO, 2000) has produced a draft document seeking to reposition earlier concepts such as disability, impairment and handicap. The earlier classification was the International Classification of Impairments, Disability and Handicap (ICIDH), which was first published by the WHO in 1980 for trialling purposes. Although the new classification is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, the WHO proposes to use the earlier acronym of ICIDH and the classification is to be ICIDH-2. Components of ICIDH-2 may be summarized as: body functions and structures; activities; participation; contextual factors. Each of these may be expressed in terms of: construct of concern; characteristics; positive aspect; negative aspect; qualifiers. If a matrix of these parameters is made, the intersection of 'negative aspect' and the four components produces the following: Body functions and structures-negative aspect: impairment. Activities-negative aspect: activity limitation. Participation-negative aspect: participation restriction. Contextual factors-negative aspect: barriersi hindrances. The term impairment is understood as 'problems in body function and structure as a significant deviation or loss' (ICIDH-2, p. 11). Activity limitation is similar to the term 'disabilities' as used in the earlier ICIDH of 1980. Participation restriction is defined as 'problems an individual has in execution of task or involvement in life situations in current environment' (ICIDH-2, p. 14) and this concept is similar to the earlier notion of handicap. Barriers I hindrances refer to an interaction of personal and environmental factors having a negative effect on performance. It can be seen that these constructs of health-related experiences are intended to replace terms used earlier, such as 'disability' and 'handicap'.

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

7

Establishing 'needs' When one is considering special educational needs, the word 'need' itself can be misleading, for it is linked to value judgements that may not at first be apparent. It is different to 'wants' in that needs imply a particular objective. If he is to paint, a child needs a paintbrush. If he wants a paintbrush, he may or may not wish to paint. As need implies values, it is not always possible to agree that a particular need should be satisfied. Further, to assess need, it is necessary to assess what is required for a particular end. Young children especially are unlikely to be able to judge their needs for themselves, particularly their long-term needs. Adults also differ in what they judge to be the child's needs depending on such factors as their perspective on child psychology, their sociological knowledge, their opinions of what desirable objectives are and their knowledge of means to ends. So how does this apply to special educational needs? Wrapped up in the term special educational needs is the assumption that the child has a need that requires satisfying or should be met. The value judgements in this include that education is in itself worthwhile and that to learn is a human need. The objective is that the learner is educated as well as is possible. What is required for that particular end may be access to a building, access to a curriculum, involvement in particular approaches to teaching and learning and so on. While such judgements seem easy to justify, it is worth remembering that in England, as recently as the 1960s, legislation considered children with severe learning difficulties as 'ineducable'. With the passing of the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970, implemented in 1971, local education authorities assumed from health authorities the responsibility of 'severely mentally handicapped' children and for the first time under law all children were considered to be capable of being educated. Should context or criteria determine SEN? SEN is defined and identified in order to determine which pupils will receive special provision over others. This preferential provision is justified by the particular circumstances of the pupil (his or her 'need'). The provision is normally that of closer individual monitoring of progress through such means as Individual Education Plans and closer attention to provision through individualized approaches or the provision of special individual equipment. If it were possible to provide these individualized approaches to provision and monitoring to all pupils there would be no point in identifying a group of pupils to be considered as those with SENs in the first place. It follows from this that educators and others have to decide who falls into the group and who does not, although there will inevitably be some

8

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

debate about pupils on the fringes of the definition of SEN and some discussion about interpretation. In Britain in the late 1970s a committee was set up to: review educational provision in England, Scotland and Wales for children and young people handicapped by disabilities of body or mind taking into account the medical aspects of their needs, together with arrangements to prepare them for entry into employment; to consider the most effective use of resources for these purposes. The subsequent influential report, known as the Warnock Report (DES, 1978), maintained that the term special education should be broadened. Before then the preferred concept was 'categories of handicap'. The committee considered among many other issues what would be a reasonable proportion of pupils to consider as having SEN. Their formulation was that about one child in six or just below 17 per cent at any one time will need some form of special education. Around one child in five or about 20 per cent of children at some time in their school career will need some form of special education. These figures have often been incorrectly remembered by educationalists in Britain to suggest that around 20 per cent of children at any one time would need some form of special education. But the main point is that an attempt was made to give a reasonable proportion of pupils that it would be appropriate to consider as having SENs. The consideration of such a percentage is useful if the population concerned is very large, such as that of Britain or that of a large region. In that context, it is meaningful to speak of about 17 per cent of pupils 'having' SEN. However, if the population is small, such as that of a school, it is less likely that a percentage will invariably be a useful indicator of SEN. This may be illustrated by taking an example of a sub-group of pupils within those considered as having SEN. Take the example of blindness. If it was accepted in a country that blind pupils received special educational provision (being taught Braille, mobility training and so on), then it would make sense to speak of this proportion of pupils receiving special education and having SEN. This might apply to around one pupil in a thousand. It would be accepted that not every school with a thousand pupils would necessarily have a blind pupil. Some such schools might have none, while others might have several. It would be strange if one of the schools with no blind pupils claimed to have a blind pupil or several blind pupils (let us say because funds were allocated for providing for blind pupils) simply because statistically it could have had a blind pupil. The determining criterion would be that blindness would be clearly defined and if a school patently had no such

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

9

pupils then any protestations that it did or any claim for funding would be dismissed. Objective criteria would save the system from being abused. When other aspects of SEN are considered, the same principles may be applied. Take the example of a specific learning difficulty mainly manifesting itself as a difficulty with reading. If it was accepted in a country that pupils with reading difficulties received special educational provision (individualized reading programmes, laptop computers and so on), then it would make sense to speak of this proportion of pupils receiving special education and having SEN. It might be around ten pupils in a hundred. It would be accepted that not every school with a hundred pupils would necessarily have ten pupils with reading difficulties. Some such schools might have less while others might have many more. It would be strange if one of the schools with few pupils with reading difficulties claimed to have 10 per cent (let us say because funds were allocated for providing for pupils with reading difficulties) simply because statistically it could have had ten per cent of such pupils. The determining criterion would be to establish a level of reading difficulty indicated by attainment in reading. If the school clearly had only a few pupils with reading difficulties then any protestations that it had more or any claim for funding inflated numbers would be dismissed. Objective criteria would again save the system from being abused. The school with few pupils with reading difficulties might claim that the proportion of pupils that it had been agreed was taken to exist nationally ought to apply to it. It might argue that, although its pupils did not have the level of reading difficulties as severe as any criteria would require, it did have pupils who were behind other pupils in the school. Therefore, in the context of the school it had pupils who had learning difficulties greater than their peers. On this contextual approach a selective school for very able pupils could claim that 49 per cent of its pupils had SEN relating to reading difficulties because they were behind (statistically) the majority of the pupils in the school. Particularly where the fair allocation of funding is involved this would lead to funds being allocated to where they were least needed rather than to where they are most needed. Criteria, then, should determine SEN rather than the vagaries of individual school context. These criteria are often in turn related to standards of pupil achievement, or they may be based on measurable criteria such as hearing loss in the case of the disability of hearing impairment.

Manageability To define SEN according to criteria including that of standards is to raise the issue of manageability. It may be decided that a certain percentage of

10

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

pupils (say 17 per cent) are to be deemed to have SEN at any one time and to receive special provision mainly in the form of individualized approaches and individual monitoring. We have already mentioned that this level of educational difficulty is not necessarily evenly spread across individual schools. The situation is manageable where a small percentage of pupils have SEN in any one school. It is more difficult where a school, according to agreed criteria, has many more than 17 per cent of its pupils with SEN, who by definition would benefit from individual provision and individualized monitoring. A point is reached where the school can no longer keep track of the individualized planning, provision and monitoring, and chasing and maintaining paperwork begins to take precedence over the education of the pupils. One practicable approach here is to concentrate on a manageable percentage of pupils with the greatest learning difficulties and to seek to provide for the other pupils through whole-school strategies, including multiprofessional approaches. This could be achieved if equitable funding was allocated to the school according to the number of pupils it has with SEN. Standards (broadly defined) and progress Standards is a general expression with a wide application. In the theatre, critics, as the judges of standards and arbiters of taste, can be searing. Heywood Brown said of one production he witnessed, 'It opened at 8.40 sharp and closed at 10.40 dull.' Dorothy Parker famously said of Katherine Hepburn's performance in a Broadway show, 'She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B.' Educational standards are considered quite broadly in the model implicit in the framework used in England and Wales by school inspectors (OFSTED, 1999a,b,c). The evaluation schedule for inspection is seen in terms of: context and overview; outcomes; quality of provision; efficiency and effectiveness of management; and issues for the school. The area relating to standards is that of 'outcomes'. Outcomes are interpreted as standards relating to: the school's results and pupils' achievements; pupils' attitudes, values and personal development; and attendance. The standards with which we are concerned are also quite broad and relate to pupil achievement. They include standards relating to English and mathematics and to other curriculum subjects. In some instances of SEN they also concern standards relating to the particular main learning difficulty of a pupil, such as the standard of speech and language when a pupil is compared with others of the same age. Judgements on standards and progress are factors helping to determine whether some pupils have learning difficulties. In other words, the judge-

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

11

ment that a child's level of learning difficulty is greater than that of others of the same age is made according to the standard of achievement of the child and the rate of progress that he or she makes. The inclusion of personal and social development as an aspect of standards is important. This is not to say that standards of academic attainment are not equally valued. Indeed, self-esteem, as an aspect of personal and social development, is likely to be enhanced if a pupil reaches higher standards of academic attainment. However, the importance of personal and social development is hard to overestimate. Where the SEN are related to disability, standards of achievement do not help to define SEN in the same way that they do for, say, moderate learning difficulties. However, the disability implies an obstacle to access to learning and the curriculum. The success with which any SEN provision aids access will be reflected in the educational progress made by the pupil and the standards of achievement reached. Consequently, standards are central in being the basis of the definition of learning difficulties and an indication of the success of provision for both learning difficulties and disabilities. 'Prior attainment' in relation to standards Ability may be maligned, as when Ambrose Bierce in his Devil's Dictionary defines a connoisseur as a specialist who knows everything about something and nothing about anything else. But it is also in education a problematic concept. When making judgements about the progress of pupils with SEN in lesson observations and elsewhere, Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) school inspectors used to express their judgements in terms of pupils of lower ability (judgements were also made about pupils of middle ability and higher ability). It is now more common for judgements to be related to 'prior attainment'. This is presumably because it is so difficult to judge the ability of a pupil, as it has implications of potential as well as performance. Such potential is difficult enough for a teacher to make when he knows the pupil well. It is almost impossible for an outside person such as an inspector to come to a secure judgement on this when she sees the pupil only for a short time. Low prior attainment, if associated with slow progress, is likely to lead to low standards of current attainment. The combination of low prior attainment and slow progress leading to low present attainment can therefore be seen as part of the definition of learning difficulties. As has already been indicated, when we discuss learning difficulties and disability, it is not implied that they are necessarily separate. The main point of the discussion here is that standards are important in the

12

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

definition of many areas of SEN and an indicator that provision is effective in all areas of SEN. A particular aspect of prior attainment is baseline assessment and this is considered as an indicator of value added in Chapter 3, on 'Curriculum and assessment and target setting'. Potential confusion between SEN and other factors Pupils who have English as an additional language In Bleak House, Dickens uses the metaphor of fog creeping around Chancery to indicate the labyrinthine and confusing paths of the law. An equally confusing blanket of fog hovers around the issue of SEN and pupils for whom English is an additional language unless one is precise. Children for whom English is an additional language may be incorrectly considered as having learning difficulties. This would happen simply because they may be attaining at a lower level, say in literacy, than other children because of the limited time which they have been learning English. If such a child has low attainment in English but learns at a satisfactory rate or better, it is of course incorrect to consider the child to have special educational needs as defined in the Education Act 1996. Learning difficulty, then, can be understood in relation to low standards and slow progress in the same way that high ability can be understood in relation to high standards and rapid progress. Indeed, the slow progress may lead to the low attainment just as the rapid progress may lead to high attainment. Pupils with low attainment because of poor opportunities In a similar way, caution is urged on teachers in making too early judgements that very young children (for example, through baseline assessment) may have learning difficulties because of low attainment. Such low attainment may, for example, reflect poor educational opportunities at home. The child may at school make progress in learning that indicates that he or she does not have learning difficulties. It may be that the poor opportunities that a child has experienced before entering school have not only appeared to lead to low attainment but also contributed to slow progress. The child's capacity to learn, to use thinking skills, and to explore may have been inhibited or discouraged so that the two concomitants of learning difficulties, low attainment and slow progress, are apparent. In this case it is appropriate that the child be considered as having SEN. The main point is that it cannot always be assumed that because a child enters a school attaining at a lower level

DEFINING SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

13

than other children, he or she does not have the capacity to progress rapidly and catch up. This is of course a subtle and important educational judgement for teachers and others to make.

Very able pupils Sometimes, teachers and others speak of pupils who are very able as having SEN, and this can be confusing. If pupils with learning difficulties can be defined in relation to low standards and slow progress, then the very able pupil can be defined as attaining high standards and making fast progress. Therefore a pupil who is very able would not by definition have learning difficulties by virtue of her high ability. It is better to refer to very able pupils as having particular needs rather than SEN. Neither would it be reasonable to view very able pupils as by definition having a disability which hindered them from making use of the normal education facilities. Of course a pupil may be very able in one aspect of attainment, such as physical education, and have learning difficulties in another area of learning, such as English, perhaps because of a specific learning difficulty. A pupil may be very able in some school subjects but may have emotional and behavioural difficulties constituting a SEN. Further, occasionally pupils with severe learning difficulties may have an area of average or better than average skill or knowledge, such as a memory for dates, musical skill or skill in drawing.

SUMMARY • ' • • ' '

-

':

"'•S'*'-' ".''''•'•••• 'aLl/' '

•

''

.'•'>'

The ftQtajaato erf, SIM to.^^ttt fjj^ffjohfriii (fa B^goitJto Act 1996 was considered. Learaing difficulty and disability were discussed. Standards were defined broadly to include not only academic standards but also personal and social development and the

$fepciaWl8;"fMcti64 i& thef6 Mj&Qf^ *fttioi'::attaiiiiiiej|t' was ednsidfered • ia ;plttipk to progress aitf; ettpi^t' ilatwlards of attainmeat, : '^^i^"^^s^Gis.^^^':^^^i^ e&^1$JA^;itft& e^osMered with reference to pupils for whom English is an additional language, pupils with low attainment because of poor opportunities and very able pupils, standards of pupils achievement are important in the definition of

ta^^jt^^^t^^'v^t &lll^^l%'i^,i^nbiHow long do school staff spend working with partners and does the 'return' justify this time? Having considered these questions, the school may not be certain of the value of the interventions. If it is judged that the contribution of professional support colleagues is not sufficiently raising levels of achievement of pupils, possible school responses are as follows. All partners should be made aware of the range of approaches used by the school to raise achievement and the contribution they can make.

'VARIABLE' SCHOOL PROVISION

87

Can the school agree with partners on the strategies, including teaching and learning strategies, that will raise achievement? If value for money is low, are there other sources of similar advice or support that might offer better value for money? 'Fair funding' approaches taken by local authorities in England and Wales involve local councils being aware of the sources of competition for the services they offer to help to ensure that they provide value for money. This introduces an element of market competition into the services that schools can use and is intended to lead to more efficient services. Can the time spent by the staff of the school working with partners be reduced and still lead to the same results, thereby possibly improving value for money? Naturally, it does not have to be only the school that considers matters from this perspective. Supporting professionals may themselves seek to evaluate their contribution in terms of its effect on raising standards of pupil achievement. These professionals and the schools with which they work may develop a shared perspective of raising standards that could be expressed as part of a service-level agreement. Parents Quentin Crisp, the late writer and one-time art model, said, 'If one is not going to take the necessary precautions to avoid having parents one must undertake to bring them up.' A similar thought expressed by novelist Anthony Powell was, 'Parents are sometimes a bit of a disappointment to their children. They don't fulfil the promise of their early years.' Whatever the limitations of parents, they are key partners in the effective education of their children. Among developments underlining the importance of parental involvement in the education of their children are parent partnership schemes. The Green Paper Excellence for All Children (DfEE, 1997) argues that local SEN parent partnership schemes have helped LEAs to work more effectively with parents whose children have SEN, especially those who are undergoing statutory assessment or who have a Statement of SEN. The government proposed to extend such schemes through a form of targeted funding, the Standards Fund. A parent partnership scheme might involve a voluntary body as well as the LEA and parents. It could: offer a resource and information base for parents and professionals working with children with SEN; help to provide training; recruit, train and support 'named persons' to assist the parents of children with SEN (DfEE, 1997, Chapter 2).

88

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

The Programme of Action (DfEE, 1998) stated that from 1999 government would expect each LEA to have a parent partnership scheme. The scheme would ensure that the parents of any child identified as having SEN should have access to an independent supporter. Each school should carefully develop its own policy for parental involvement so that partnership can be based on agreed roles and responsibilities. Parents may be involved in the school setting targets for their son or daughter and may contribute to the achievement of the target through supporting the pupil's work carried out at home. Home-school agreements or contracts can help to clarify the respective roles of parents and teachers in this area. Parents may also give crucial support in helping a pupil to reach behavioural targets. Of course, it is a valuable motivating factor for many pupils for them to see that the school and home are working together for their benefit. When parents help in class it is reasonable to ask to what degree they are contributing to raising standards. It is said that in a classroom in London, a grandmother of one of the pupils in the school was helping the teacher by hearing children read and, it was assumed, assisting them. The school was visited by a school inspector who realized very quickly that the grandmother could not herself read. The school had apparently assumed that the presence of another adult was a given good, and had not considered the importance of the impact on pupil achievement (or in this case the lack of it). Of course, this example is extreme, but it is clear to teachers that some parents with particular skills are likely to raise standards, while others are not. Possible school responses if it is judged that the contribution of parental support is not sufficiently raising levels of achievement of pupils are: ensuring that parents and the school agree on the importance of raising standards and the strategies for doing so; improving the contribution of parents through brief sessions of training, perhaps provided by the school; putting in place a tactful screening procedure for recruiting parents from those who have volunteered to help. The community Writers sometimes portray the community as if it were something quite separate from them. H. L. Mencken thought that democracy was 'The theory that common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.' More pointedly, Oscar Wilde, speaking of journalism, said, 'There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the

'VARIABLE' SCHOOL PROVISION

89

community.' A less amusing but more generous and realistic perspective on the community is as a body to which we all belong and from which a school as part of this community can often draw goodwill and support. Links with the community, including higher education and business, can be viewed as a given good, but can also be informed by the effect on attainment. Links with local universities or colleges of further and higher education may be used to recruit mentors for some pupils with SEN who could benefit. Business contacts may include those with companies who could provide resources for pupils with SEN at a competitive rate or free. The effect on standards of achievement should be trackable, if only in a fairly anecdotal way. The data may show that some human and physical resources had a more beneficial effect on standards of achievement than others. Questions arising from an analysis of the data may include the following. Are the learning resources that did not work well sufficiently well targeted, appealing and motivating? What is it about effective volunteers that distinguishes them from the less successful? This information might be used to: feed information back to companies to improve the appeal and interest of their learning resources; inform the recruitment and the in-school training of volunteers. Documentation School records often include a basic list of pupils with SEN, their main learning difficulty and the provision planned to address it. More detailed records are often variations of individual plans which set out more precisely, among other details, what is being done to address the learning difficulty, how its success will be judged and the timescale of the interventions. An important aspect of school record-keeping is that it should make clear the standards of achievement and progress of pupils with SEN. Records should be used not just to record but to assist in modifying approaches and in confirming that the provision is successful. Transition from primary school to secondary school Record-keeping in relation to pupils who are changing schools is important in helping to maintain special school standards. Such records include those for pupils with SEN transferring from primary to secondary school. Information sharing should involve a system of meetings with

90

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

colleagues from secondary schools to discuss issues and particular children. Documents need to be passed on at an agreed time, with an agreed content and in an agreed way (by hand or by e-mail). If the information sharing is monitored, this will help to make sure that it happens and may give pointers to how to simplify and improve procedures. Parents should be involved and made aware of the contacts between primary and secondary school. In their final year at primary school pupils benefit from being able to visit the secondary school which they will attend, for a tour and/or to experience a lesson there. The secondary school will probably have its own induction system and may choose to open only for year 7 pupils on the first day of the new school year. Year 7 teachers in secondary schools may consider that they receive insufficiently detailed information on pupils entering year 7 to inform their planning. However, the outcomes of the National Curriculum assessments at the end of Key Stage 2 appear to be insufficiently used to ensure the smooth progress of pupils moving from year 6 to 7. Locally, schools need to agree the dates in the summer term when assessment data will be transferred. Schools should agree what will be included: raw test scores, age-standardized scores, separate levels for reading and writing and teacher assessment judgements relating to attainment targets. Timing and good quality information are important to enable secondary schools to use the information to inform their decisions about the grouping of pupils. All this applies to all pupils (Farrell, 2001) but is likely to be particularly helpful to ensure timely and appropriate provision for pupils with SENs. Individual Education Plans A John Lennon lyric speaks of life being what happens to you while you are busy making other plans. This reinforces the truth that what matters is not so much the planning (and certainly not the written plan) but what goes into the planning process and what stems from it. However, to ensure clarity of purpose and to avoid duplication of effort, as well as for other reasons, plans can be useful. In England and Wales, for pupils with SENs, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) is normally maintained. This sets out the SEN of the pupil, the provision intended to address them and individual targets to aim for within a specified time frame. For example, for a pupil with numeracy difficulties, a target might be to be able to compute a specified list of mathematical problems with 90 per cent accuracy within six weeks, through half an hour per day individual tuition on similar types of problems. If raising standards and improving progress is seen as central to

'VARIABLE' SCHOOL PROVISION

91

special education, then it follows that lEPs should contribute to raising achievement in a clearly specified way. The strategies specified in lEPs would draw on the range of approaches set out in the school SEN policy and contribute to reaching group targets for pupils with SEN. The sharing of targets with the pupils to whom they apply may help the pupils achieve the target, particularly if they have had an input into setting the target in the first place. There is a drawback with lEPs, however. It is difficult to know if the individual targets set in lEPs are sufficiently ambitious for a particular pupil. Judging the appropriate combination of target and the timescale for achieving it for an individual pupil sets a challenge for even the most experienced teacher. It cannot be known securely whether the targets set in lEPs are sufficiently stretching or are quite unchallenging. If targets of numeracy progress were set for pupils on the register of SEN, these could be much more advantageously compared with the progress which pupils make in similar schools having a similar number of pupils on their register at similar levels. This benchmarking of schools according to the levels of achievement would concentrate on pupils requiring a focused individualized approach. Another perspective would be to aim for sufficient progress to be made by a pupil in numeracy in, say, a year, so that his achievement would be such that it would no longer represent the cohort of the low percentile that it did on the previous testing. If sufficiently rapid progress was made, this might indicate that the child does not have SEN but 'only' low attainment. At the same time, the new assessment level would be likely to lift the pupil out of the cohort that would be considered to have SEN, or SEN at a particular place in the framework of the SEN Code (for example, 'school support' or 'support plus'). If slow progress were made then the reverse would be indicated. It would suggest that the child had SEN. The SEN might also need to be addressed through a more intensive level of support; for example, 'support plus' rather than 'school support'. The SEN policy In England and Wales, it is an expectation that mainstream schools (and special schools) have a policy of SEN. While this can be at its least useful a rather bland document, it can at its best be used to galvanize and focus support both from outside the school and within it. The school's SEN policy may be used as a tool to assist in the raising of standards of achievement. For example, the standards of all pupils or groups of pupils with SEN may be determined, with targets set for the improvement of standards of achievement in a specified time, e.g. six months. Strategies for achieving this improvement would also be specified.

92

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

The policy would set out the range of strategies used by the school and might include: a reading recovery programme, the use of new resources, focused work with a member of staff for a specified period per week, a behaviour modification strategy and so on. The overall success or otherwise of the strategy would be monitored and evaluated. Such group target setting, if well judged, can raise the aspirations of staff and pupils higher than they might otherwise be, in the same way as whole-school target setting for all pupils. The standards achieved by pupils with SEN can be used to evaluate different approaches, such as the differential use of withdrawal from class or working with pupils within class. If both approaches are used, it may be feasible for the school to compare pupils beginning from a similar starting point but who receive one approach as opposed to another. All other factors being equal, this could indicate the effectiveness of one approach over another at that time in the school's development. If these analyses are informed by the financial cost of different approaches, the information can indicate the value for money of one approach compared with another. The raising of achievement may be monitored and evaluated in an ongoing way by the senior management team in a school and by individual teachers. Governors will also be able to monitor the raising of standards if the information relating to this is put before them at the relevant meetings. Support to schools may come from locally provided professional support or from parents and representatives of the local community, including business. Such support may be usefully evaluated in the SEN policy according to the degree to which it is judged to have raised standards of pupil achievement.

SUMMARY

The contribution of professional and lay support can be judged according to the degree to which it raises the standards of pupil achievement. Steps can be taken to improve the effect of this support on pupil achievement. Turning to documentation, school records should make clear the standards of achievement of pupils with SEN and their progress. Documents should be used not just to record but to provide evidence to modify approaches and confirm that the provision is successful.

'VARIABLE' SCHOOL PROVISION

93

Transition from primary school to secondary school is important for all pupils, but with pupils with SEN there is a particular opportunity to ensure as smooth a transition as possible. Among approaches to assist this are locally agreed strategies for what information is to be transferred, when and how it is to be transferred and to what use it will be put. There are limitations to the effectiveness of Individual Education Plans in raising standards and increasing progress unless their use is informed by other measures, including the utilization of data from a cohort of pupils with SEN. Among the limitations of lEPs are that it is difficult even for teachers regularly in contact with pupils to be confident that the targets are sufficiently ambitious to be challenging. The school's SEN policy should be a dynamic working document pulling together the strategies used to raise the standards of pupils with SEN and monitoring the effectiveness of these approaches. References

DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: Department for Education and Employment. DfEE (1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs: a Programme of Action. London: Department for Education and Employment. DfEE (2000) Educational Psychology Services (England): Current Role, Good Practice and Future Directions. Report of the Working Group. London: Department for Education and Employment. Farrell, M. (2001) Key Issues for Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 9 The special school

Introduction Wartime British prime minister Winston Churchill observed, 'When I look back on all these worries I remember the story of the old man who said on his death bed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.' Staff in good special schools may be forgiven if they are worried about the future of the pupils whom they teach, given some comments made in the debate on inclusion. Among these are the statement in the Green Paper on special education in England and Wales (DfEE, 1997, p. 43) that there are 'strong educational as well as social and moral grounds for educating children with SEN with their peers'. In recent years, in part because of increased interest in aspects of inclusion, the role of the special school has come under critical scrutiny. It is important that the function of the special school be fully understood and agreed. This can help to enable fair judgements to be made about the continuation and the evolving role of individual special schools on educational grounds, and not inordinately according to any political ideology. Standards of achievement have a key role to play in this judgement (Farrell, 2000). A more balanced view of the role of the special school is likely to appear when two developments occur. First, supporters of full inclusion will need to come to recognize the work that good special schools achieve. Second, those who would wish to see special schools continue only on ideological grounds, rather than on merit, will need to recognize that special schools must earn their place in the range of effective educational provision. Until then proponents of full inclusion and those who work in special schools are likely to be like film director Woody Allen's lion and calf. 'The lion and the calf shall sleep together but the calf won't get much sleep.'

96

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Definitions The definitions of SEN are as relevant to the special school as to the mainstream establishment. Special schools are often designated as providing for pupils with particular SEN, although in many special schools the SEN are complex and cannot be adequately described solely with reference to one main SEN (such as behavioural, emotional and social difficulties). Nevertheless, special schools focus on a main area of SEN, such as: severe learning difficulties/profound and multiple learning difficulties; behavioural, emotional and social difficulties; moderate learning difficulties; communication and interaction; sensory and physical. Just like mainstream schools, special schools (and others) will bring definitions to bear in their admissions procedures. This definition may involve seeking to specify a degree of severity of SEN that will explain why a pupil is offered a place in a special school rather than a mainstream school. The definition may include a description of the complexity of the SEN, as well as its degree of severity. Standards of achievement have their place in this situation to the extent that some SEN are defined according to learning difficulty (severe, profound, moderate). Admission will also be influenced by parental preference, the effective use of resources and the effect that admission to a mainstream school would be judged to have on other children in a mainstream classroom. Identification and assessment It has long been accepted that special schools would normally provide for pupils with the greatest 'need'. This can be seen as providing for pupils with: the greatest level of learning difficulty evidenced by pupils who make the slowest progress and consequently attain the lowest standards without intensive support and specialist provision; the greatest degree of disability. In England and Wales, this level of learning difficulty is normally associated with a quasi-legal document, a 'Statement of SEN'. Consequently, special schools normally provide for pupils with Statements, although some offer assessment places to pupils who do not have such Statements. Over half the number of pupils with Statements of SEN are educated in mainstream schools. Curriculum, assessment and target-setting In special schools, there are tensions around the curriculum, as a study of special school inspections in England and Wales illustrated (Sebba et al., 1996). On the one hand, special schools may be expected to provide a

THE SPECIAL SCHOOL

97

broad and balanced curriculum, in England and Wales including the National Curriculum. On the other hand, they may more effectively raise achievements by focusing on other features. These include: the 'access' subjects of English, mathematics and information technology, which, as well as being important in themselves, allow access to other subjects and areas of the curriculum; personal and social education. Similar issues arise with regard to assessment. If the curriculum of a special school differs too greatly from that of a mainstream school, then assessments will need to be modified so that they focus on what has been taught. For example, if there is a concentration on functional skills such as eating, washing and dressing, these will need to be assessed. It is important that such curriculum developments are dovetailed into the wider agreed National Curriculum for all children. Within special schools it is difficult to compare pupils meaningfully for the purpose of target-setting. Among the reasons for this is that different special schools may have similar designations but may not have similar pupils. For example, consider two special schools in different areas, both providing for secondary age pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. In one local area there may be a unit in one or more mainstream secondary schools which serve such pupils, while in the other there may not. In one district, it may be more likely that pupils with very severe difficulties are placed in residential schools elsewhere; in the other, it may be much more likely that the local schools would be expected to provide. Such examples can be extended both for pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties and for those with other SEN. The outcome is that the intake of the special school may not be similar, making comparisons difficult. It is important to ensure therefore that when one is looking at outcomes such as standards of achievement in apparently similar schools, the cohort of each school can be fairly compared. In England and Wales, where pupils are working at levels below the National Curriculum level 1, among the approaches taken to assess pupils is the use of the p scales. These are performance criteria with elements for language and literacy, mathematics and personal and social development (DfEE, 1998b). They have been found to be useful for pupils with severe learning difficulties and for some pupils with moderate learning difficulties. An example of an item on the p scales is in language and literacy writing, in which item 4 is: pupils make marks or symbols in their preferred mode of communication and are beginning to show an awareness that marks or symbols

98

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

convey meaning, e.g. generating a symbol from a selection on a computer, painting/drawing/making a mark on paper. (DfEE, 1998b, p. 26) A few practical examples can illustrate the way in which target-setting may be tackled. In a primary school for pupils with severe learning difficulties/profound and multiple learning difficulties (SLD/PMLD), it was decided that setting statutory targets was unproductive. This is because targets at level 2 and above in the National Curriculum tests for English and mathematics at the end of Key Stage 2 give percentages year on year of 0 per cent owing to the nature of the pupils' learning difficulties. More relevant were targets connected to the work done within the organization Equals, a consortium of schools for pupils with SLD/PMLD. A national database for pupils with SLD/PMLD was set up in the latter part of 1999, enabling the school to compare itself with similar schools so that target-setting and benchmarking were more meaningful. This approach has been related to the development of a curriculum and an associated scale of assessment. These scales have been used to assess more than 3,000 pupils in over 160 schools for pupils with SLD/PMLD. Results were used to provide comparative data, allowing benchmarks to be made against the whole cohort and targets to be set in individual schools according to their profile compared with the whole cohort of pupils. Each school was able to compare pupils that were in upper, middle and lower performing bands within the school. A secondary school for pupils with SLD/PMLD also felt reservations concerning statutory targets. The school set targets in terms of the percentage of pupils who achieved some form of accreditation and improved attendance. It is actively seeking ways to represent standards of attainment based on existing accreditation used in the school. In a primary school for pupils with MLD the special educational needs of the pupils mean that the percentage of pupils achieving national curriculum level 4 and above in English and mathematics at the end of Key Stage 2 would be 0 per cent year on year. Consequently, targets have been set relating to the percentage of pupils achieving level 2 and above at the end of Key Stage 2. A secondary school for pupils with,MLD recognized that the special educational needs of the students meant that none would achieve one of the statutory targets: five or more A* to C grades in the GCSE examinations. However, there are pupils who achieve one or more GCSEs A* to G, which is another statutory target, and the school's targets are set in these terms. A primary school for pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties has set targets in terms of the percentage of pupils in year 6

THE SPECIAL SCHOOL

99

achieving level 4 and above at the end of Key Stage 2. However, this has to be seen in the context of the very small cohort and the special educational needs of the pupils. The school is also more effectively using the results of reading tests and a mathematics test taken by all pupils to set targets in terms of increases in knowledge and skills year on year. At a secondary school for pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, targets have been set in relation to the percentage of pupils who achieve one or more GCSEs and to the percentage who achieve Certificates of Educational Achievement, which underpin GCSEs. Inclusion and the 'new' role of the special school In the Green Paper Excellence for All Children (DfEE, 1997, p. 49), the traditional role of the special school was seen as providing, 'specialist teaching, support and facilities'. The document recognizes the continuing need for special schools to provide for a very small proportion of pupils whose needs cannot be fully met in mainstream. In some cases this provision would be temporary. The Green Paper also envisaged a new role for special schools. It was proposed to examine how special school staff could work more closely with mainstream schools and with support services to meet the needs of pupils with SEN. Staff in special schools 'might work in resourced mainstream schools or in units attached to mainstream schools' (p. 50). Special schools could also set 'targets for the amount of time pupils should participate in mainstream education' (p. 51). In special schools some pupils would be in full-time placements, while others would be there part-time or short term. Special school staff could: support some pupils in mainstream; help mainstream schools to implement their policies for inclusion; train and advise mainstream colleagues (p. 51). Government wanted 'real progress over the next four years' (that is, from late 1997 to 2001). The document Meeting Special Educational Needs: a Programme of Action (DfEE, 1998) sets out the intention to promote further inclusion and develop the role of special schools through measures including 'identifying and disseminating good practice by special schools in developing practical links with mainstream schools, and promoting special schools' contribution to an increasingly inclusive educational system' (p. 22). 'Special provision' would continue to play a vital role. Such provision would often be in special schools but not always (p. 23). There would be no local and national targets for inclusion but government would keep under review their possible value. Special schools would need increasingly to 'work flexibly' (p. 25).

100

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

As indicated in the earlier chapter on inclusion, standards can be used to help to inform judgements about the appropriateness or otherwise of a placement in a special or a mainstream school. It is essential therefore that special schools know what their standards of achievement are and can set data relating to this beside data on standards reached by broadly comparable pupils in local mainstream schools. This is not to imply a rigid distinction between the special and mainstream school. An important role for the special school is to identify with others the pupils in the school who will benefit most from proportions of time in mainstream schools with a view to increasing the proportion of time in the mainstream if progress is made. Special schools may also have close links with units in mainstream schools working with pupils with the same main SEN. Such units can act as a bridge to aid the gradual transfer of a pupil from special to mainstream school, judged according to progress made and standards of achievement reached. Funding Arnold Schwartzenegger, the film actor, made the observation, 'Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million.' The importance of funding is at the forefront when one scrutinizes what special schools offer. Being an expensive form of provision makes it important that special schools can demonstrate the progress that they enable pupils to make and the levels of achievement which pupils can achieve from a known starting point. Their contribution as a centre for the training of staff, for physical resources and advice, as well as for outreach work, also adds to the value for money that a special school can provide. The use of SEN standards and progress data with pupil information To balance against the common view of data and statistics as ingenuous, it is well to remember the comment of Noel Moynihan, the doctor and writer: 'Statistics can prove anything, even the truth.' Information on special schools judged in inspections by the Office for Standards in Education in the years 1994 to 1998 were summarized in a subsequent report (OFSTED, 1999). In the years before 1996/7, standards in special schools were judged in terms of pupil attainment in relation to their capability (although it was unclear how 'capability' was judged). It was recognized that in most special schools it was not fitting to judge pupil attainment against the national norms. After the introduction of a new Framework for Inspection in 1996/7, standards in special schools were judged in terms of pupil progress.

THE SPECIAL SCHOOL

101

Again it is difficult to know how it can be judged whether progress is satisfactory. The report recognized the difficulties posed by the change in the basis of judgement part way through the inspections summarized (p. 9). However, the report stated that with reference to special schools, 'during the first three years of the review standards were rising slowly' (p. 11). In schools inspected in the final year (1997/8), 'standards were higher' (p. 16). Pupils made satisfactory or better progress in nine out of ten special schools - a proportion similar to that of progress in mainstream. However, there were greater proportions of weak special schools than there were mainstream schools. The report recognizes the importance of standards of pupil achievement, although there are difficulties in its findings, and not just because of the change of criteria in the final year of the inspections reported. Other difficulties are the problematic nature of making judgements about standards in relation to 'capabilities' that anyone would find difficult to estimate. Also problematic is the issue of making inspection judgements about standards in relation to progress, when expected progress is also very difficult to estimate, even for teachers who work with pupils for long periods. The analysis of standards and progress data and pupil factors may cover gender, ethnicity, main learning difficulty, social background and age. All of these apply to special school analyses. In the case of some SEN, the interpretation of gender data requires caution because there are gender factors associated with the SEN. For example, in autism, there are three times as many boys as girls affected. Rett Syndrome and Turner's Syndrome affect girls only. But whereas a mainstream school is advised to monitor the standards achieved by its cohort of pupils with SEN, the special school would be advised to make particular note of the progress of sub-groups of pupils within the main SEN for which it provides. For example, a school for pupils with severe learning difficulties could monitor the progress and standards of pupils who also have autism or those who have particular difficulties with communication. The point of this monitoring would be to establish the progress and achievement, to look for difficult to explain anomalies and to use these to seek ways of further improving provision and therefore raising standards. The use of SEN standards and progress data for 'stable' school provision In the inspection report on special schools in England from 1994 to 1998 mentioned above (OFSTED, 1999), the quality of teaching in special schools was judged to be satisfactory or better in nine out of ten special schools in the year 1997/8. There were variations according to

102

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

the main learning difficulty for which the special school provided, with generally lower levels of teaching quality in schools for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The quality of teaching in a special school can be judged against agreed criteria such as those published by OFSTED in England and Wales. It can also be evaluated according to the progress made by pupils in different class groups, as long as it is clear that comparisons are justifiable and fair. Turning to curriculum access, within a special school there may be predominantly provision for a particular aspect of SEN, such as behavioural, emotional and social difficulties or visual impairment. Nevertheless, there will also be a range of prior learning and the need to meet the learning needs of a diverse population. This makes effective differentiation just as important as in a mainstream school. School organization, the deployment of staff and the grouping of pupils are clearly as important in a special school as in a mainstream school. The use of SEN standards and progress data for 'variable' school provision The same approach that is recommended for mainstream schools regarding judgements of the effectiveness of professional and lay support can also be used by special schools. Indeed, it can be argued that it is even more important that a special school knows the value of support, as it gets so much more than a mainstream school. The special school's use of human resources often has economies of scale and can demonstrate the best use of time. For example, fifty pupils with severe learning difficulties in a special school may also need regular physiotherapy for physical difficulties. Fifty similar pupils may be attending ten different mainstream schools. It is a better use of the physiotherapist's time to work with the pupils in the special school than to spend most of the time travelling from school to school when the pupils are dispersed over several mainstream schools. SUMMARY While special schools are often designated as providing for pupils with particular SEN, in many special schools, the piipito :csattot-be adequately described solely with reference to one main SEN.'-Special schools bring definitions to bear' in4heir;adMissiQras,:prc)€edures, perhaps involving ,specifying;'a'degree,of- severity, and complexity of, SEN that explains .placement In a special,school'

THE SPECIAL SCHOOL

103

Standards of achievement are importand in admissions, to the extent that some SEN are defined according to learning difficulty. Special schools normally provide for pupils with Statements of SEN, althought some offer assessment places to pupils who do not have such statments.

. ^fipilpfi' -s^^pt %B^0M8vit:--'iS:;^iHl^jl|- to, cttttij^ife ,|Wpil4:'iii^Wtt^"' Fully the purpose of target-setting; for example, because different : :

^^^l^/^'ll^l^^ip^^; ^^;;fI|fi^^;^^^ii^«>^ri$teii«§ ca'^thefwise/of a piaeeiijeiit ia.'n.;ap$da3 dr'a'i?ffittnstreaai _ $Ql: wfe will:beriei|t 'ua^t frw tttfe;itt;^p0|jp«a»^;schWs witt^ $ ^iew -:to tBcr«tirtg: tte j>r%®rtic»' of't|^ in fte raaiiastriam if prepess-'ig mud*. Special sctiodls may-;pfeo liaw elose liafe with appr^prlatf ;ttsEiits ta maitt§tr«amicfti0dis td"ai4;the^d«al trailer of a pwpilfrj-,: pupils- ;ia'_ di&$£$. 'ij^--0*$^: $& ''\$j$;3j&, f|; ; |C coiiSi]Eiie8 6i;'icate,'|tti^rt;;i|i|i|AS^ e the

l^si-tjse'iEtf'&TO;'-' -•' • - ' ' ' ' • ;

References

:

'-:/ ;;: •",';="!': :•'''•,-'/, •'' •"--L•;.:'./'•' ;;;•;' -'/_

::

DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: Department for Education and Employment. DfEE (1998a) Meeting Special Educational Needs: a Programme of Action. London: Department for Education and Employment. DfEE (1998b) Supporting the Target Setting Process: Guidance for Effective Target Setting for Pupils with Special Educational Needs. London: Department for Education and Employment. Farrell, M. (2000b) 'Educational inclusion and raising standards'. British Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 35-8. OFSTED (1999) Special Education 1994-98: a Review of Special Schools, Secure Units and Pupil Referral Units in England. London: The Stationery Office. Sebba, J., Clarke, J. and Emery, B. (1996) 'How can the inspection process enhance improvement in special schools?', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11, 82-94.

CHAPTER 10

Conclusion

In the introduction to this book, we set out the 'bill of fare to the feast'. It follows that in the conclusion, it only remains to remind diners what has been laid before them. This book in each of its chapters has sought to indicate the importance of standards of pupil achievement in all aspects of special education. Standards (understood as encompassing academic attainment and achievement in other areas, including behavioural, emotional and social development) are important in the definition of many areas of SEN and an indicator that provision is effective in all areas of SEN. 'Learning difficulties' are defined according to standards and progress, and the effectiveness of provision may be judged according to how it increases progress and raises standards. 'Disability' is seen in terms of access to learning and the curriculum. The severity of the disability is judged according to the extent to which it hinders access to learning and the curriculum, while the effectiveness of provision is judged according to the extent to which it aids access. Curriculum and assessment are potential aids to the education of pupils with SEN, in that they can provide a common framework and a common language for provision and assessment. Extending the lower levels of the curriculum and providing smaller steps to learning enables progress to be made. Assessment accommodations to the general curriculum provide opportunities for pupils with SEN to demonstrate their achievements. Where different aspects of curricula and different assessments are necessary, these should still be consistent to enable comparisons to be made of pupil standards of achievement and progress. For pupils with SEN the role of standards of achievement is important as the starting point for targetsetting, and is central to benchmarking and value added measures. This applies whether the attainment is related to learning difficulties or is a

106

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

pragmatic indicator of the effectiveness of provision which aims to ensure access to learning and to the curriculum for disabled pupils. The approach of 'educational inclusion' takes into account the standards reached in different venues (including mainstream school, special school, pupil referral unit and home education) when the appropriate place for a child to be educated is being considered. Funding is most fairly allocated if it is dispersed according to standards of pupil achievement and agreed and consistent local criteria. If schools determine what they perceive as their own level of SEN within the school context, especially where this attracts funding, this can be a perverse incentive and act against parity. A useful approach using SEN data to raise standards is to analyse data, seek possible reasons to explain the data which relate to school provision and seek to adjust provision to optimize the performance and participation of pupils with SEN. Various data on standards can be used, as well as assessments of reading, including speaking and listening, numeracy and behavioural, emotional and social development. Other data that can help to raise standards for pupils with SEN include the quality of teaching (and systems and structures that support teaching) and the way it relates to provision for pupils with SEN. Pupil organization and the allocation of staff can be judged and improved through their possible effects on the standards of pupils with SEN. The contribution of professional and lay support can be judged and improved according to the degree to which it raises the standards of pupil attainment. School records should make clear the standards of pupils with SEN and their progress. These documents should be used not just to record but to modify approaches and confirm that the provision is successful. Transition from primary school to secondary school is assisted by locally agreed strategies. The use of individual education plans should be informed by other measures, including the use of data involving a larger cohort of pupils with SEN. The school's SEN policy should be a dynamic working document pulling together the strategies used to raise the standards of pupils with SEN and monitoring their effectiveness. Special schools have an important place in the range of provision for pupils with SEN. Various factors related to standards influencing the field of SEN in general also have an impact on special schools. These factors include: definitions of SEN and disability relating to identification and admissions; the curriculum and assessment; target-setting, benchmarking and value added measures; inclusion; funding; the use of SEN standards and progress data (on pupil information, 'stable' school provision and 'variable' school provision).

CONCLUSION

107

Standards of pupil achievement permeate all aspects of special education and should be given greater priority than at present to lead to greater agreement in our understanding and approaches. Although Oscar Wilde referred to consistency as 'the last refuge of the unimaginative', he could not possibly have had special education in mind, for it is an area in which a greater degree of consistency than we have at present would be enormously beneficial.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

age 69-70 attainment (low) 12 behavioural, emotional and social difficulties 22 benchmarking 34 cognition and learning difficulties 21-2 communication and interaction difficulties 22 community 84-5 continuum of provision 54-5 criteria 7-9, 53-5 curriculum and assessment England and Wales 25-7 United States of America 27-8 disability 5 documentation

89-92

English as an additional language 12 ethnicity 67-8 funding increases in 49-50 local allocation in England and Wales 51-2 national allocation in England and Wales 50-1 in USA 56-9

gender

65-7

inclusion target setting 32-3 definitions 39-40 social 40-1 full inclusion 41-2 in USA 41 reservations about 42-4 educational inclusion 44-6 individual education plans 28, 86-7 learning difficulties manageability

5

9-10

needs 7 numeracy 70 Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) 73,100 parents 87-8 poor opportunities 12 professional support 85-7 progress 10-12 pupil data 64-5 pupil organization 80-2 Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) 31

110

STANDARDS AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

quality of teaching comparisons 77-8 curriculum access 76-7 a model 74 systems of support 77 Scotland and Northern Ireland 2 SEN Code principles and policies 15-16 partnership 16 identification assessment and provision 16-18 statutory assessments statements and annual reviews 19-21 sensory and physical difficulties 22 special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) role 79-80 special educational needs policy 91-2 special schools definitions of SEN 95 curriculum and assessment and target setting 96-9 funding 100 identification and assessment 96

inclusion 99-100 standards and progress 100-2 social background 68-9 staff allocations 79 staff roles and responsibilities 78-9 standards 10-12 statement of special educational needs 51-2 target setting 30-1 negative effects 31-2 inclusion 32-3 SEN 33-4 teaching quality (see quality of teaching) thresholds 21-3 transition from primary to secondary school 89^90 United States of America 1-3, 41, 57-60 value added measures 34-5 very able pupils 13 World Health Organization 6